Good for iowahawk, who is a mensch from way back. Albeit, Paul Krugman has become the biggest, slowest-moving target on the whole cultural battlefield. Mrs. Grundy's Remedial Math class could probably fell him.

I like it. As for Krugman, I think it's a hazard of having taken up the partisan mantle (I don't fault him for that; hell, someone's got to) and having to fill a couple of columns every week.

So do we conclude that High School educational standards, and drop out rates, are really pretty similar throughout the country if we compare apples to apples? That's intersting.

Throughout the most boring periods of our nation's history, notably the Eisenhower administration, many people have filled two columns a week without filling them with diarrhea and indigestion.

Granted, not many NYT columnists have managed this feat.

He did miss one cogent point regarding SAT scores- participation. The percent of students who take the SATs varies dramatically. Generally the less students taking the test the higher the scores (the most motivated, best prepared being more likely to take the test)... particularly given that many states favor the ACT and only the most highly motivated students of all will take both.

Of the top 20 states in SAT scores (in 2010), only 1 (Tennessee) had more than 10% participation. The next 30 ALL had more than 10%. The lowest score of them all was Maine with 92% participation. That isn't a sign that Maine isn't well educated- quite the contrary! Maine clearly expects all its students to go on to college and so almost all will take the test.

In other words, simply looking at SAT score by state is less than useless- participation dwarfs every other consideration.

His follow-up post is a barn burner as well. Well worth the read.